Add support for Hetzner Cloud Floating IPs

[christoph-heiss]

[markwort]

hey @tpo , if you want to take a look at what has become of your first attempt at supporting the hetzner cloud API and their failover IPs, this branch is already buildable and the code runs as expected already.

If you still have interest and some spare time, we would appreciate another pair of eyes and hands checking it out!

[github-actions[bot]]

📅 This PR has been automatically marked as stale because lack of recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. ♻️ If you think there is new information allowing us to address this PR, please reopen it and provide us with updated details. 🤝 Thank you for your contributions.

[tpo]

Hi @markwort , hi @christoph-heiss , hi @pashagolub

A year has gone by and only now I come around looking at this.

Before I invest time into this, let me ask you all (I assume @pashagolub is currently the mainter of this project?): is there interest in including support for Hetzner Cloud Floating IPs in this project?

Let me formulate my question more precisely: if there was a perfect pull request (by perfect I mean: reveiled to humanity by no one less than $GOD), would you merge it? Yes? No?

I am asking because I have implemented this very feature in my own fork of vip-manager a long time ago. I asked for a merge. The result was that there was a request to rewrite vip-manager with a new configuration manager. Which was a lot of additional effort. That additional task was finished. However neither the rewrite on top of the new configuration manager nor the floating IP feature were merged. @christoph-heiss reimplemented the same feature - why the feature was reimplemented is unclear. But this time it seems re-basing it onto a new config and plugin manager was not necessary? So in case everybody will proceed putting more work into the pull request - will that mean that the feature will be finally included?

[pashagolub]

Hey @tpo

We don't have a dedicated maintainer for the project, and that's probably why all this new functionality is still unmerged.

That said, I'm always trying to support one's work. So yeah, I would be more than happy to work with perfect pull requests. :-)

I'm not sure we have any projects involving hetzner, meaning we cannot test that in the field. But I'm OK with having one more method. @markwort what do you think?

[christoph-heiss]

Chiming in: We do have a test setup (read: one Hetzner VPS + floating IP) - so yes, we can test this functionality, at least for development.

I can clean up this PR, rebasing and resolving the remaining comments/CI warnings as I got time. Shouldn't be much of a hassle, since (IIRC) everything was already working as intended. Other than that, I think it as mergable as is - @markwort?

[pashagolub]

Good to know @christoph-heiss. Feel free to reopen the PR then. 👍

[tpo]

We don't have a dedicated maintainer for the project, and that's probably why all this new functionality is still unmerged.

That said, I'm always trying to support one's work. So yeah, I would be more than happy to work with perfect pull requests. :-)

I'm not sure we have any projects involving hetzner, meaning we cannot test that in the field. But I'm OK with having one more method. @markwort what do you think?

All right, very nice to hear and thanks a lot @pashagolub ! So in case any one of you would very much still want a code review from me, then please let me know and I'll try to do it earlier that one year from now ;-D. And I'll also wait for a "yes I want this patch merged" from @markwort .

Thanks a lot to you guys for caring about this!